We often leave generic comments to OP and answer posters such as: "if this is a homework, please add a tag," and such. Can we make this post a community wiki and add a big list of standard comments? Let's annotate the usage cases, so other users and copy-and-paste whenever applies.

I've added some comments I've been using. (And by doing that I've also given some examples of situations, for which I consider such comments comments useful.) I thinks it goes without saying that other users should feel free to change them or even rewrite them completely. (It is implied by the nature of CW, but I wanted to stress this. Be bold!)
–
Martin SleziakAug 17 '12 at 6:37

Perhaps we could modify some of the templates given at cstheory. I went through their list and at least these situations appear at our site, too: "Question lacks motivation/background", "User crossposts a question on multiple sites", "User posts answer as comment", "User posts a question that is off-topic but may be on-topic on another site".
–
Martin SleziakAug 18 '12 at 6:34

18 Answers
18

This is based a comment Arturo used to add to questions of relatively new users (although this post has been edited a few times and the message has been slightly modified):

Welcome to math.SE: since you are new, I wanted to let you know a few things about the site. In order to get the best possible answers, it is helpful if you say in what context you encountered the problem, and what your thoughts on it are; this will prevent people from telling you things you already know, and help them give their answers at the right level. Also, many find the use of imperative ("Prove", "Solve", etc.) to be rude when asking for help; please consider rewriting your post.

Welcome to math.SE: since you are new, I wanted to let you know a few things about the site. In order to get the best possible answers, it is helpful if you say in what context you encountered the problem, and what your thoughts on it are; this will prevent people from telling you things you already know, and help them give their answers at the right level. Also, many find the use of imperative ("Prove", "Solve", etc.) to be rude when asking for help; please consider rewriting your post.

Of course, this should be customized for the particular post. In particular, the examples of imperative words should come from the question itself. And you could throw in a sentence saying "Titles should be informative".

It's not the imperative as a grammatical device that's rude -- the standard style of written mathematics uses imperatives all over the place. What is rude is writing a question that looks like it consists only of a verbatim quote from an exercise sheet with no thought of the asker's own to go with it. But the fact that such quotes usually contain imperative verbs is completely incidental.
–
Henning MakholmNov 21 '12 at 14:03

2

@HenningMakholm Feel free to rewrite and improve the template - that's why it is CW. (And I should also say that I agree with your point.)
–
Martin SleziakNov 21 '12 at 14:27

It would be impossible for me to rewrite the comment here without making a lie of the attribution to Arturo. But if you can find something Arturo wrote without the ridiculous, misleading comment about imperatives, I would be all for replacing this with it.
–
Henning MakholmDec 16 '12 at 12:28

@Henning Something like this? (I am not entirely sure that Arturo was the first person to use welcome comment similar to above, but at least I have seen him using it plenty of times.)
–
Martin SleziakDec 16 '12 at 12:47

For some basic information about writing math at this site see e.g. here, here, here and here.

For some basic information about writing math at this site see e.g.
[here](//meta.math.stackexchange.com/q/5020),
[here](//meta.stackexchange.com/a/70559),
[here](//meta.math.stackexchange.com/q/1773) and
[here](/help/notation).

Sometimes this explanation can be added if a post was TeX-ified by other MSE users:

After you ask a question here, if you get an acceptable answer, you should "accept" the answer by clicking the check mark ✓ next to it. This scores points for you and for the person who answered your question. You can find out more about accepting answers here: How do I accept an answer?, Why should we accept answers?.

After you ask a question here, if you get an acceptable answer, you should "accept" the answer by clicking the check mark ✓ next to it. This scores points for you and for the person who answered your question. You can find out more about accepting answers here: [How do I accept an answer?](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/3286/), [Why should we accept answers?](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/3399/).

This question is of insufficient quality(Template arose from this thread)

If necessary, this can be preceded by Hello, welcome to Math.SE.

Your question is phrased as an isolated problem, without any further information or context. This does not match many users' quality standards, so it may attract downvotes, or be put on hold. To prevent that, please [edit] the question. This will help you recognise and resolve the issues. Concretely: please provide context, and include your work and thoughts on the problem. These changes can help in formulating more appropriate answers.

Your question is phrased as an isolated problem, without any further information or context. This does not match [many users' quality standards](http://goo.gl/mLWc8), so it may attract downvotes, or be put on hold. To prevent that, please [edit] the question. [This](http://goo.gl/PlJyVQ) will help you recognise and resolve the issues. Concretely: please provide context, and include your work and thoughts on the problem. These changes can help in formulating more appropriate answers.

That template appears to still be in the process of editing and discussion, under the posting by Lord Farin. If LF does not incorporate the new suggestions it is likely there will be a separate thread to finish the edits. In addition to the comment text editing, there is either a plan or an undisputed request to have the "This" link eventually point to a "how to post good question" meta question and not to the "how to post homework question" that currently exists.
–
zyxMay 7 '13 at 8:31

@zyx I edited a link to the other thread and included your comment about the ongoing discussion. Feel free to improve this community wiki post here once you have reached an agreement on the other thread.
–
Julian KuelshammerMay 7 '13 at 9:08

1

I have the feeling LF might be tired of making edits on this constantly, so having a CW thread could make sense to let whoever wants to influence the text. It is potentially going to be used on thousands of questions. Then update this answer when it converges.
–
zyxMay 7 '13 at 9:18

1

I was indeed tired for a few days; back now. The comment has gone through five successively smaller edit rounds. With two weeks of time to assess it having passed, I doubt there will be many people requesting further changes to it. IMO, the only thing that is still pending is a "good question" meta post.
–
Lord_FarinMay 7 '13 at 10:10

Please, try to make the title of your question more informative. E.g., Why does $a<b$ imply $a+c<b+c$? is much more useful for other users than A question about inequality.
From How can I ask a good question?: Make your title as descriptive as possible. In many cases one can actually phrase the title as the question, at least in such a way so as to be comprehensible to an expert reader. You can find more tips for choosing a good title here.

Please, try to make the title of your question more informative. E.g., *Why does $a<b$ imply $a+c<b+c$?* is much more useful for other users than *A question about inequality.*
From [How can I ask a good question?](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/a/589/): *Make your title as descriptive as possible. In many cases one can actually phrase the title as the question, at least in such a way so as to be comprehensible to an expert reader.* You can find more tips for choosing a good title [here](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/a/10144/).

Please, post only one question in one post. Posting several questions in the same post is discouraged and such questions may be put on hold, see meta.

Please, post only one question in one post. Posting several questions in the same post is discouraged and such questions may be put on hold, see [meta](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/6464/posting-multiple-questions-as-one?).

The tag differential-equations is intended for questions about ordinary differential equations, there is a separate tag for pdes; see the tag-wiki and the tag-excerpt. (The tag-excerpt is also shown when you are adding a tag to a question.)

The tag ([tag:differential-equations]) is intended for questions about ordinary differential equations, there is a separate tag for [tag:pde]s; see the [tag-wiki](http://math.stackexchange.com/tags/differential-equations/info) and the tag-excerpt. (The tag-excerpt is also shown when you are adding a tag to a question.)

The ([tag:sums-of-squares]) tag is for questions about representations of integers as sums of squares, see the [tag-wiki](http://math.stackexchange.com/tags/sums-of-squares/info) and [relevant discussion on meta](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/12411/what-is-the-tag-sums-of-squares-intended-for).

The tag theorem-provers is for questions about software designed for checking formal proofs or assisting with writing them, see the tag-wiki. It is not intended for all questions which are about proofs of theorems.

The tag ([tag:theorem-provers]) is for questions about software designed for checking formal proofs or assisting with writing them, see the [tag-wiki](http://math.stackexchange.com/tags/theorem-provers/info). It is not intended for all questions which are about proofs of theorems.

The tag formal-proofs is for questions about proofs in various formal systems (e.g., natural deduction or Hilbert system|, see the tag-wiki. It is not intended for all questions which are about rigorous mathematical proofs.

The tag ([tag:formal-proofs]) is for questions about proofs in various formal systems (e.g., natural deduction or Hilbert system|, see the [tag-wiki](http://math.stackexchange.com/tags/formal-proofs/info). It is not intended for all questions which are about rigorous mathematical proofs.

The tag proof-theory is intended for questions about proof theory as a branch of mathematical logic, see the tag-wiki and relevant discussion on meta. It is not intended for all questions related to proofs.

The tag ([tag:proof-theory]) is intended for questions about proof theory as a branch of mathematical logic, see the [tag-wiki](http://math.stackexchange.com/tags/proof-theory/info) and relevant [discussion on meta](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/11195/the-proof-theory-tag-is-misused-too-often). It is not intended for all questions related to proofs.

The tag ([tag:algebraic-geometry]) is intended for questions in a branch of mathematics called algebraic geometry (see the [tag-wiki](http://math.stackexchange.com/tags/algebraic-geometry/info).) The tags ([tag:algebra-precalculus]) and/or ([tag:geometry]) should be used for basic problems that involve both algebra and geometry.

An integral domain is a commutative ring with no zero divisors. The tag integral-domain should be used for questions about such rings, not for questions about integration.

An [integral domain](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_domain) is a commutative ring with no zero divisors. The tag ([tag:integral-domain]) should be used for questions about such rings, not for questions about integration.

Probability theory is about the measure-theoretic foundations of stochastics. The tag probability-theory should be used for questions concerning this subject, not for questions about calculating a specific probability. Use probability instead, see also meta.

[Probability theory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_theory) is about the measure-theoretic foundations of stochastics. The tag ([tag:probability-theory]) should be used for questions concerning this subject, not for questions about calculating a specific probability. Use ([tag:probability]) instead, see also [meta](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/1686/the-tags-probability-and-probability-theory).

The tag roots is for zeroes of functions, the tags arithmetic and radicals are better tags for questions about square roots, cube roots, etc. From roots tag-info: For questions about "square roots", "cube roots", and such, consider using the (radicals) and (arithmetic) tags.

The tag ([tag:roots]) is for zeroes of functions, the tags ([tag:arithmetic]) and ([tag:radicals]) are better tags for questions about square roots, cube roots, etc. From [roots tag-info](http://math.stackexchange.com/tags/roots/info): For questions about "square roots", "cube roots", and such, consider using the (radicals) and (arithmetic) tags.

The tag ([tag:filters]) is intended for [filters](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_%28mathematics%29) in set-theoretical and order-theoretical sense; see the [tag description](http://math.stackexchange.com/tags/filters/info).

I have added this mainly because people keep using this tag in connection with Kalman filter and similar stuff. See also this discussion.

Is there a reason to have the extra set of parentheses around the tag: links? It seems unnecessary to me, but I want to make sure before I remove them.
–
epimorphicyesterday

2

@epimorphic: They are probably there because in comments [tag:tagname] is rendered as tagname, without the parentheses. The added parentheses make them look more like tag links in posts: ([tag:tagname]) becomes (tagname).
–
Arthur Fischer♦yesterday

@ArthurFischer Ah, silly me. Though perhaps the additional parentheses should still be removed from the comment previews above.
–
epimorphicyesterday

@epimorphic: That would seem to be a reasonable thing to do.
–
Arthur Fischer♦yesterday

@epimorphic As Arthur Fischer writes, I have included them because (filters) makes clear to the reader that this represents a tag. But filters would probably work just fine. As for preview, I included in both places exactly the same text. Maybe you are right that we should make an effort to make rendering look line in comments, not like in posts. But I do not see other comment templates than those about tags where there is a difference. Basically I see this as a non-issue.
–
Martin Sleziakyesterday

@MartinSleziak The "should" in my last comment might have been poorly worded – I meant it as a suggestion. It's not that big of a deal as you say, and using the same code in both places is probably easier to maintain.
–
epimorphicyesterday

Something like this is useful when a new user asks what is almost surely a homework question without formatting anything into LaTeX.

Welcome to math.SE! Please consider taking the time to read the faq to familiarise yourself with some of our common practices. In addition, this page should give you a start at learning how to typeset mathematics here so that your posts say what you want them to, and also look good. As this question appears to be homework, please consider reading this page for information about asking effective homework-related questions. Cheers!

Welcome to math.SE! Please consider taking the time to read the [faq] to familiarise yourself with some of our common practices. In addition, [this page](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/q/5020/8348) should give you a start at learning how to typeset mathematics here so that your posts say what you want them to, and also look good. As this question appears to be homework, please consider reading [this page](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/q/1803/8348) for information about asking _effective_ homework-related questions. Cheers!

Similar to How to write math by Martin Sleziak, but a little more focus on the fact, that one self has edited a post.

Welcome to math.SE: I have tried to improve the readability of your question by introducing Tex. It is possible that I unintentionally changed the meaning of your question. Please proofread the question to ensure this has not happened.

Welcome to math.SE: I have tried to improve the readability of your question by introducing [Tex](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/). It is possible that I unintentionally changed the meaning of your question. Please proofread the question to ensure this has not happened.

Some -- especially new -- users employ display math mode (using $$ delimiters) and other TeX commands (e.g. \dfrac, \displaystyle) in their titles. After fixing this, the following comment can be used to explain one's actions.

I have changed the formatting of the title so as to make it take up less vertical space -- this is a policy to ensure that the scarce space on the main page is distributed evenly over the questions. See here for more information. Please take this into consideration for future questions. Thanks in advance.

I have changed the formatting of the title so as to make it take up less vertical space -- this is a policy to ensure that the scarce space on the main page is distributed evenly over the questions. See [here](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/a/9730) for more information. Please take this into consideration for future questions. Thanks in advance.

From FAQ about tags: Try to avoid creating new tags. Instead, check if there is some synonym that already has a popular tag. It's not easy to keep balance between too specific tags and not having enough tags, but it is always good to search first and to ask yourself, whether newly created tag is not too specific. (Of course, you can disagree with the removal of the tag you've created, and there is possibility for further discussion, if needed.)

From [FAQ about tags](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/107/faq-for-math-stackexchange/128#128): *Try to avoid creating new tags. Instead, check if there is some synonym that already has a popular tag.* It's not easy to keep balance between too specific tags and not having enough tags, but it is always good to search first and to ask yourself, whether newly created tag is not too specific. (Of course, you can disagree with the removal of the tag you've created, and there is possibility for further discussion, if needed.)

The first part of the comment seems to be sufficient in cases when retagging or removal of tags is clear-cut.

[tag:reference-request] should not be used as a standalone tag; see [tag-wiki](http://math.stackexchange.com/tags/reference-request/info) and [meta](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/2498/the-meta-tags).

This comment seems to get a better reception in the fortnight or so I (LF) have been using this than the "insufficient quality" version, and is considerably shorter. I haven't used the "insufficient quality" blurb since I wrote up this one (mainly to reflect the new close reason).

Please read this post and the others there for information on writing a good question for this site. In particular, people will be more willing to help if you [edit] your question to include some motivation, and an explanation of your own attempts.

Please read [this post](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/a/9960) and the others there for information on writing a good question for this site. In particular, people will be more willing to help if you [edit] your question to include some motivation, and an explanation of your own attempts.

I've noticed that you have asked quite a few questions recently. I wanted to make sure that you are aware of the quotas 50 questions/30 days and 6 questions/24 hours, so that you can plan posting your questions accordingly. (If you try to post more questions, StackExchange software will not allow you to do so.)
For more details see meta.

I've noticed that you have asked quite a few questions recently. I wanted to make sure that you are aware of the quotas 50 questions/30 days and 6 questions/24 hours, so that you can plan posting your questions accordingly. (If you try to post more questions, StackExchange software will not allow you to do so.)
For more details see [meta](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/a/4770/).

Of course, sometimes it might be better to be more specific. (E.g. "I've noticed that you've asked 10 questions in last 3 days" or something similar.)

@... Please consider converting your comment into an answer, so that this question gets removed from the unanswered tab. If you do so, it is helpful to post it to this chat room to make people aware of it (and attract some upvotes). For further reading upon the issue of too many unanswered questions, see here, here or here.

@... Please consider converting your comment into an answer, so that this question gets removed from the [unanswered tab](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/q/3138). If you do so, it is helpful to post it to [this chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/9141) to make people aware of it (and attract some upvotes). For further reading upon the issue of too many unanswered questions, see [here](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/143113), [here](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/q/1148) or [here](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/a/9868).

Your question was put on hold, the message above (and possibly comments) should give an explanation why. You might try to edit your question to address these issues. Note that the next edit puts your post in the review queue, where users can vote to reopen this. (Therefore it would be good to avoid minor edits and improve your question as much as possible with the next edit.)

Your question was put on hold, the message above (and possibly comments) should give an explanation why. You might try to edit your question to address these issues. Note that the next edit puts your post in the review queue, where users can vote to reopen this. (Therefore it would be good to avoid minor edits and improve your question as much as possible with the next edit.)

Creation of this template was prompted by Willie Wong saying in a related post: Perhaps this should also be made better known to the poster! Quite frequently I've seen inessential edits bump questions into the review queue, well before they are ready to be reconsidered. The post is CW, if you have an idea how to improve the wording, please, edit it.
–
Martin SleziakSep 25 '14 at 7:18

I'd really prefer that the "reopen requests" thread not be included in this. Ideally that thread should be reserved for more clear-cut cases, and advertising this thread will likely result in a lot of re-open requests for poor questions which haven't been improved. (The moderators regularly receive flags requesting the re-opening of such questions.)
–
Arthur Fischer♦Sep 25 '14 at 8:22

@ArthurFischer I followed your advice and removed the part about the reopen request thread. (But it would be good not to remove your comment, so that other users who edit this template see that this was done on purpose.)
–
Martin SleziakSep 25 '14 at 8:34

New users who do not have enough reputation posting comments in the answers section

Welcome to Math.SE! This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post - you can always comment on your own posts, and once you have sufficient reputation, you can comment on any post.

Welcome to Math.SE! This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post - you can always comment on your own posts, and once you have [sufficient reputation](http://math.stackexchange.com/help/whats-reputation), you can [comment on any post](http://math.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/comment).

New users posting another question in the answers section

Welcome to Math.SE! This does not provide an answer to the question. You should ask a separate question about your concern if you provide some background and formalize it as a mathematical problem.

Welcome to Math.SE! This does not provide an answer to the question. You should ask [a separate question about your concern](http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/ask) if you provide some background and formalize it as a mathematical problem.

I often see this comment posted, and don't understand why it is posted when most of the generic message is usually not relevant to the "answer" being commented on. I find generic messages especially off-putting when they are largely irrelevant.
–
Jonas MeyerAug 8 '14 at 0:54

1

@JonasMeyer I think it does not come from these templates, but from the Low Quality queue dialog for answers. It's true that the comment is often not applicable at all. Perhaps some reviewers don't realize that "no comment needed" is a perfectly good option.
–
Famous Blue RaincoatAug 8 '14 at 0:56

@900sit-ups: That is helpful, thanks! I haven't yet familiarized myself with all of the reviewing mechanisms. (Off-topic: I was really surprised to receive a reply to my comment so quickly by someone other than the post owner. How did you do that?)
–
Jonas MeyerAug 8 '14 at 1:01

1

@JonasMeyer One of my Chrome extensions for SE is Comments in Sidebar: I see all recent comments on the site in the sidebar. On the main this is usually useless, on meta this is often irritating, but also helpful -- for example, when SE developers tracking bugs seek clarification on ancient bug reports from users who are no longer active.
–
Famous Blue RaincoatAug 8 '14 at 1:04